On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 05:45:00PM +0100, Anton Khirnov wrote: > Quoting Vittorio Giovara (2016-02-11 17:19:26) > > On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 5:27 AM, Anton Khirnov <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Quoting Vittorio Giovara (2016-02-09 22:43:13) > > >> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 4:02 PM, Anton Khirnov <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > --- > > >> > libavfilter/buffersrc.c | 2 +- > > >> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > >> > > > >> > diff --git a/libavfilter/buffersrc.c b/libavfilter/buffersrc.c > > >> > index f5b852f..0079f51 100644 > > >> > --- a/libavfilter/buffersrc.c > > >> > +++ b/libavfilter/buffersrc.c > > >> > @@ -327,7 +327,7 @@ static int request_frame(AVFilterLink *link) > > >> > } > > >> > av_fifo_generic_read(c->fifo, &frame, sizeof(frame), NULL); > > >> > > > >> > - ff_filter_frame(link, frame); > > >> > + ret = ff_filter_frame(link, frame); > > >> > > > >> > return ret; > > >> > } > > >> > > >> how about `return ff_filter_frame(link, frame);` > > > > > > To what end? > > > > you coalesce two lines, skip an assignment, and imho make the flow more > > readable > > And if we ever want to add any more code between the call and return, > we'll have to go back to this form anyway. Also, excessive nitpicking is > evil.
Yes, if you want to make changes, you have to make changes.. I agree with Vittorio that it's more concise and elegant and with you that it's a minor issue. Diego _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
